Fuel EXe Fuel Exe sizing dillema

[grim007]

Hey guys
I'm 1.78m, which according to Trek puts me on the L.
I did a quick ride at the shop on the size L and it certainly feels much longer than all my other bikes.
The guys at the shop claim that I'm definitely a L, but I'm worried it will be like that one time I bought a Large Transition Covert and said to myself to never buy large bikes again.
Do you recommend downsizing?
I once rented an M/L trek and it felt just the right size for me, unfortunately there is no M/L in the Exe its either the M or the L.
I ride a Medium Transition Spur and a Medium Evil The Offering.
Unfortunately there is no M I can sit on to try at the moment.

 

[Humanbeersponge]

Maybe try putting your existing bike in Geometry Geeks and compare with the Trek. I am 1.77m but ride a large in a Orbea and SC Bronson as they seem smaller than normal bikes.

It can also depend on your legs and torso ratio. I have a very long torso and stupidly short legs so get the reach right then typically change to short cranks on most bikes I have.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Hey guys
I'm 1.78m, which according to Trek puts me on the L.
I did a quick ride at the shop on the size L and it certainly feels much longer than all my other bikes.
Unfortunately there is no M I can sit on to try at the moment.

I think I saw your post on FB and replied there, but more thoughts.
These sizing discussions often focus on FIT but, handling is a different topic. Especially on a bike this versatile it's a big difference. It's all about the wheelbase, and a longer wheelbase isn't ideal for every trail & rider.

If you look at recommended sizing and geometry for similar bikes that are more enduro/FR/AM focused, they almost all go longer. Look at the Chromag Darco for example, at 5'-7"- 6'-0" they put you on a M/L, but their M/L is LONGER (490mm) than Trek's size L. They suggest 5'-8" is the max for the size M, which has a 472 reach. Geometry is otherwise, relatively similar.

I've had a lot of 450-460mm reach bikes and the EXe size M felt very small to me. I got to test ride both the M and L, the M felt way too small. But- I was definitely looking for more enduro geometry. If you ride slower, flatter, twistier more XC trails, then sizing down makes sense. You can put a shorter stem on a L, but putting a longer than 50mm stem on a medium was definitely a no-go for my riding style. For me the chromag approach to geometry works perfectly.

 

[jabar1975]

I got same dilema (same but different) as I am 187 and both (L and XL) are good on paper.
Tested both side by side, bigger is definitely more comfy, smaller more agile. Finally ordered L as is better to play a bit with stem and saddle and width of handlebar to make it good.
While ago tested Rise and there I was decided to go with XL as L seems to be super short for me (I have rather long arms and shorter legs).
Acoustc fuel ex 5th gen was perfect in L.

All depends on preferences abd type of terrain you will ride.
Assuming both are OK I would choose smaller (and I am not super advance rider),

 

[volts]

Ignoring bike fit for a moment, you have to be honest with yourself. Do you want to more demanding but more fun handling bike where the balance point is a bit harder to find, or do you want a less demanding bike better for going in a straight line?
I think a lot of riders find themselves more comfortable on longer bikes, but I also think it takes away some of the fun and if you are very skilled, also some performance.
For reference, 182cm tall Richie Rude rides a size M with 465mm reach.

 

[Like a Boss]

Trek is funny about people in the 178cm height range. I ride a size Large Rail from 2020. It seems a little big to me and I have often been frustrated on it and want to sell it for a Medium. I also ride a 2021 Slash size M/L and it fits me very well. I never have a feeling it is too big or too small. Looking at the numbers, the Fuel EXE would be better in Medium for me. Might feel small but I'd rather go small than big. That said I have never ridden this new Fuel EXE. I seem to prefer a reach of about 460mm. 475 and up makes for a big bike. Reach isn't the only number, of course. I ended up with a Kenevo SL size S3 it fits and rides like a boss in my 5'10" 177.8 CM height.

 

[Piccirilli]

I'm the same height 178cm and having the same dilemna, ultimately settled on a medium. I used to ride an early model slash large, which actually had a shorter effective top tube compared to the medium eXE. Modern frames have changed a lot. One more thing to consider is the seat post that comes on these two. The large comes with a longer travel seat post compared to the medium. That extra inch maybe useful, except in case where you may need to limit travel due to short legs. This could be the reason why our height is borderline w/Trek recommendation.

 

[grim007]

I'm the same height 178cm and having the same dilemna, ultimately settled on a medium. I used to ride an early model slash large, which actually had a shorter effective top tube compared to the medium eXE. Modern frames have changed a lot. One more thing to consider is the seat post that comes on these two. The large comes with a longer travel seat post compared to the medium. That extra inch maybe useful, except in case where you may need to limit travel due to short legs. This could be the reason why our height is borderline w/Trek recommendation.

I always have that problem with medium frames, thats why I have a OneUp dropper post that I keep with 190 travel that I can adjust according to the buy.
How does the medium feel for you?
I personally prefer shorter more responsive bikes vs long freight trains.

 

[Emailsucks98]

For reference, 182cm tall Richie Rude rides a size M with 465mm reach.

Was curious so I had to look- Jesse Melamud, 170cm, rides a M with 455mm reach. Richies an outlier and I think he runs a 50mm stem.

I think it’s really just down to personal preference. Was also really surprised that mullet takes 18mm off the reach.

 

[Piccirilli]

I always have that problem with medium frames, thats why I have a OneUp dropper post that I keep with 190 travel that I can adjust according to the buy.
How does the medium feel for you?
I personally prefer shorter more responsive bikes vs long freight trains.

I have long arms/torso and short legs. Which typically puts me on a large for comfort. Even so, I went with the medium because the large felt too big to throw around and wheelie. For greater comfort, rather than going with a longer stem (which is still an option), I moved the seat back a bit. Also worth noting on the medium, you can setup your 190mm seat post an inch lower compared to the large, which gets it further out of the way for greater maneuverability. On my stock seat post, I have it positioned 1- 3/4" above slam dunk position, and might consider a longer travel seat post in the future. They both have their pluses and minuses, though I am happy with my choice on the medium.

 

[grim007]

Just wanted to post an update that I ended up getting the Medium after trying both several times.
For me it feels like the perfect size. The moment I sat on the Medium I knew this is the size for me.
I've installed the 190mm dropper post and will probably increase the travel all the way to 200 or 210 as I feel I can raise the seat abit higher.

 

[JP-NZ]

Ignoring bike fit for a moment, you have to be honest with yourself. Do you want to more demanding but more fun handling bike where the balance point is a bit harder to find, or do you want a less demanding bike better for going in a straight line?
I think a lot of riders find themselves more comfortable on longer bikes, but I also think it takes away some of the fun and if you are very skilled, also some performance.
For reference, 182cm tall Richie Rude rides a size M with 465mm reach.

The movement towards longer slacker bikes in the last 3-4 years has put so many people on the wrong size bike. Between 175 and 180cm most should be on a 450-465mm reach bike not the 470-500mm that bike companies think we should be. Trek's 2022 and 2023 bikes in particular have left massive gaps in reach numbers sadly.

FWIW I'm 179cm on a Medium Rail with 456 Reach

 

[Emailsucks98]

The movement towards longer slacker bikes in the last 3-4 years has put so many people on the wrong size bike. Between 175 and 180cm most should be on a 450-465mm reach bike not the 470-500mm that bike companies think we should be.

I've had 3 chromag wideangles in a row- a 2016 M (400mm reach), a 2019 M (440mm) and a 2021 M/L (464mm). It's been awesome to own 3 bikes which have been pretty much identical other than the frame sizing. the M/L (with a 35mm stem) has been my favorite.

Chromags newer models are pushing a 490mm reach for riders over 5'-8". Not to debate with you, but I completely trust Chromag for geometry and sizing. I see the move towards longer bikes as following the evolution in trail building and also steeper seat angles. With steeper seat tubes (so much better for climbing) the reach needs to be longer too (or a longer stem -no thanks) to keep the bars in the same place during seated climbing. Longer bikes with stubby stems excel on steep rolls and high-speed jumps, which is what most of us have now instead of skinnies and slow XC tech. If Trek makes a M/L EXe someday, I might consider swapping- but until then the L is correct for me. Keeping in mind Mullet cuts 12-18mm off the reach.

I also recognize it's personal preference. Although pretty much everyone locally is riding long-ish bikes. So it is in the PNW.

 

[JP-NZ]

For reference, 182cm tall Richie Rude rides a size M with 465mm reach.

Jack Moir is 186cm and rides 470mm reach, Bernerd Kerr also runs between 455-460mm reach.